How many of these 375ml bottles would ever make it to a consumer that walked into a store?

I don't know.

So - what is the purpose of this experimental release? Certainly not to draw any marketing information regarding the quality of the contents of these bottles from the general public or even the informed Bourbon drinking public.

To make a nice profit on what they are able to sell, to generate publicity, to position themselves as a leader and innovator, to create demand for other BT products that are in greater supply, to create demand in advance of future EC releases, to guage reactions to the current EC releases from the limited number of persons able to obtain them, possibly for the purpose of creating future general release products, and maybe some other things that haven't occurred to me yet.

BTW - you said earlier in this thread :

"Now that the cat is entirely out of the bag on this, how many of you are looking forward to paying $45 for a 375 ml bottle of "experimental" whiskey?"

If $45 was too much then - then what's up with the $300 a bottle price question?

There are essentially two ways to deal with a limited edition product, allocation and price. They chose allocation, which made some people unhappy, so I was wondering if they (you) would have liked price better as a way to limit demand. BT could have made a lot more money and the race wouldn't have been to the swift (or, more likely, the connected) but instead to the rich.

BTW cowdery - How many of these bottles do you own?

None, but I did taste them last year at Whiskeyfest Chicago in a public seminar open to anyone with a ticket to Whiskeyfest Chicago.

I don't know what your affiliation is with BT.

I have none.

If you want to know more about who I am and why I feel qualified to make the comments I have made, everything you need to know is on my web site. To get there, just click on my name below.

Have a nice day.

cowdery:

I believe that you have trashed the context of my original questions - and provided in <my> opinion - answers that remind me of a former president that could not determine the meaning of "is".

As you suggested - I did go to your web site.

Before I respond any further - I was informed by someone that you may be a lawyer.

Please confirm or deny as to whether or not you are a lawyer - and if so - as to what type of law you practice.

Please forgive me if I am wrong - but I believe that this is pertinent to my future discussions within the forum.

BTW - I am not a lawyer. I spend a lot of time writing computer programs. I don't spend alot of time trying to market the truth - as my perspective is at the true or false level. If you ask me a question - I'll do my best to answer the question you asked - in the same context that it was asked.

...If you ask me a question - I'll do my best to answer the question you asked - in the same context that it was asked...
Grant

Ah, context -- a good point! Might I suggest you try to ascertain what the context is before you imply aspersions, especially toward a long-standing SB.com stalwart and professional whiskey writer. In fact, those two facts ARE context here.
You don't have to agree with everything -- or anything, for that matter -- that is written here. But it behooves you to be civil -- and to acknowledge the mere possibility that others' opinions are well-grounded.

Ah, context -- a good point! Might I suggest you try to ascertain what the context is before you imply aspersions, especially toward a long-standing SB.com stalwart and professional whiskey writer. In fact, those two facts ARE context here.
You don't have to agree with everything -- or anything, for that matter -- that is written here. But it behooves you to be civil -- and to acknowledge the mere possibility that others' opinions are well-grounded.

I do believe that I am being civil. I understand that there are those that will not appreciate me asking questions of those that are held in such high regard by many.

I believe that you have trashed the context of my original questions - and provided in <my> opinion - answers that remind me of a former president that could not determine the meaning of "is".

As you suggested - I did go to your web site.

Before I respond any further - I was informed by someone that you may be a lawyer.

Please confirm or deny as to whether or not you are a lawyer - and if so - as to what type of law you practice.

Please forgive me if I am wrong - but I believe that this is pertinent to my future discussions within the forum.

BTW - I am not a lawyer. I spend a lot of time writing computer programs. I don't spend alot of time trying to market the truth - as my perspective is at the true or false level. If you ask me a question - I'll do my best to answer the question you asked - in the same context that it was asked.

I have a pretty thick skin but this has gotten ridiculous. Unlike President Clinton, I am not under oath nor does my inquisitor have any standing of which I am aware. Therefore, I will not participate in this pointless exchange any further.

Thank you to all who have jumped into this on my behalf. Let's consider it closed.

I have a pretty thick skin but this has gotten ridiculous. Unlike President Clinton, I am not under oath nor does my inquisitor have any standing of which I am aware. Therefore, I will not participate in this pointless exchange any further.

Thank you to all who have jumped into this on my behalf. Let's consider it closed.

Think of all the good whiskey bottles you can get for that price! At the moment Iīm enjoying brilliant stuff from all over the world (well, almost!) including my recent brilliant E.T. Lee, Blantonīs STFB, Stagg and even my newly acquired RHF has shaped up a bit even if I still regard it as a minor disappointment. Hey, I even managed to find a bottle of AAA 10yo (in Denmark, of all places!)

Dave and Roger,

Do I understand you right here, i.e. that you are advocating self-censorhip? I hope Iīm wrong but if not I think you should ask yourself what constitues a true friend.

From my experience, the ones who are always nice to you are, more often than not, the same people who talk badly about you behind your back.

A true friend, on the other hand, praises and encourages you when it is deserved and, at the same time, dares to criticize you when it is called for.

I cannot in my wildest dreams think that anyone from BT who stops by at this forum would dismiss SB.com members as "enemies" just because of one complaint.

A community that chokes on its own over-friendliness is not a good thing in my book. To me it is an invitation to dullness and complacency.

Hey, even the head honcho himself, Jim, is prone to the odd venom spitting and I like him all the better for it!

A forum is by definition a place for open discussion or expression of ideas.

Before I respond any further - I was informed by someone that you may be a lawyer.

Please confirm or deny as to whether or not you are a lawyer - and if so - as to what type of law you practice.

Please forgive me if I am wrong - but I believe that this is pertinent to my future discussions within the forum.

How? Why? I've always found Mr Cowdery's posts to be enlightening and on point. I've never felt threatened or disrespected by the content of his posts. I'm not sure what someone else's profession has to do with one's future willingness to engage in civil discussions?

How? Why? I've always found Mr Cowdery's posts to be enlightening and on point. I've never felt threatened or disrespected by the content of his posts. I'm not sure what someone else's profession has to do with one's future willingness to engage in civil discussions?

I find it acceptable to ask what his profession is - as he eluded to mine in a previous post in this thread.

As far as relevance goes - as you may recall - President Clinton was a lawyer too.

At the risk of being tarred and feathered - I too would like to drop this argument. Please post anything further to me privately.